... convince me that there exists some crazy, hypothetical scenario whereby performing a Move In Certified inspection increased the liability for the inspector above and beyond the liability of performing the same inspection for the buyer (traditional inspection).

... convince me that there exists some crazy, hypothetical scenario whereby performing a Move In Certified inspection increased the liability for the inspector above and beyond the liability of performing the same inspection for the buyer (traditional inspection).
[/quote]

Hi Nick ,
I guess I won't win your wager . But I didn't realize that this had come into question ! Could it be that (hypothetically) you could have a face off between 2 HIs and maybe REAs !
BW , Al .;-):D:D

After doing a Move In Certified inspection for a client. The clients agent dropped their listing and was obligated to report the finding to the local health board and the house was deemed condemned. The senior citizen couple was forced to leave their home. The clients son claimed if i had not nit picked the house he could have made the repairs. And his parents would still have a home. The house was later torn down by the city.

Their son filed a claim stating that if he was not given time to fix the house and blamed the agent and myself as conspiring to commit fraud.

That's simple. You perform an inspection for the seller. YOu miss somthing that could have been found, but you simply missed it.

The new buyer gets an inspection by someone else. THis inspector finds the issue you miss, and it kills the deal. Because the seller had confidence in you, and since your misdiagnosis was the factor that made the deal fall through(according to the buyers) then the seller sues you for the loss of the sale, and also both agents.....

That's really the main reason why most inspectors are worried about sellers inspections. Even if the issue found was not a big issue in your opinion, it may have been to the buyers. You know it could happen.

After doing a Move In Certified inspection for a client. The clients agent dropped their listing and was obligated to report the finding to the local health board and the house was deemed condemned. The senior citizen couple was forced to leave their home. The clients son claimed if i had not nit picked the house he could have made the repairs. And his parents would still have a home. The house was later torn down by the city.

Their son filed a claim stating that if he was not given time to fix the house and blamed the agent and myself as conspiring to commit fraud.
[/quote]

OK for $100.
You do both the move in certified and the buyer inspection but your report catches things in one but not the other.
This will create a conflict under some scenarios and basis for a winning court suit against the inspector.
I am talking about issues that existed under both time frames.
Do I win?

Bob you and Sean are using inspector neglect. Which has nothing to do with what was asked.
[/QUOTE]

You must have sour grapes.

Hypothetical scenario whereby performing a Move In Certified inspection increased the liability for the inspector above and beyond the liability of performing the same inspection for the buyer.
Perhaps you need to make your own guess rather than pretending you are the judge Robert?

[QUOTE]
After doing a Move In Certified inspection for a client. The clients agent dropped their listing and was obligated to report the finding to the local health board and the house was deemed condemned. The senior citizen couple was forced to leave their home. The clients son claimed if i had not nit picked the house he could have made the repairs. And his parents would still have a home. The house was later torn down by the city.

Their son filed a claim stating that if he was not given time to fix the house and blamed the agent and myself as conspiring to commit fraud.

[/QUOTE]

In your scenario, that is not fraud. And the inspector wasn't the one that didn't give the son time to fix the house, the local health board did. Had the seller's agent discovered the problem through the buyer's agent, presumably the seller's agent would have taken the same action in your scenario. You writing the report for the seller instead of the buyer didn't change anything, and so didn't change your liability.

[QUOTE]
That's simple. You perform an inspection for the seller. YOu miss somthing that could have been found, but you simply missed it.

The new buyer gets an inspection by someone else. THis inspector finds the issue you miss, and it kills the deal. Because the seller had confidence in you, and since your misdiagnosis was the factor that made the deal fall through(according to the buyers) then the seller sues you for the loss of the sale, and also both agents.....

That's really the main reason why most inspectors are worried about sellers inspections. Even if the issue found was not a big issue in your opinion, it may have been to the buyers. You know it could happen.

OK Give me my money now...

[/QUOTE]

In your scenario, missing a defect on a seller's inspection didn't cause the buyer to walk, the defect itself did. It was the second inspector finding the defect that caused the buyer to walk. Had you missed the defect for the buyer (instead of the seller), the deal couldn't have fallen apart over it because the buyer wouldn't have known about it. Missing a defect for the seller has no more liability than missing it for the buyer. It is often better (from a liability standpoint) to miss a defect for a seller than a buyer, because the buyer's inspector might catch it for you, and eliminate your damages.

Bob Elliot's scenario:
[quote]
OK for $100.
You do both the move in certified and the buyer inspection but your report catches things in one but not the other.
This will create a conflict under some scenarios and basis for a winning court suit against the inspector.
I am talking about issues that existed under both time frames.
Do I win?

[/quote]
In your scenario, you don't tell me if the seller's inspection report includes defects not included in the buyer's inspection report or if the buyer's inspection report includes defects not included in the seller's inspection report. So let's pretend both occurred: The defects in the seller's inspection report are provided to the buyer by the seller. So the buyer learns of them anyway and can't complain. The defects in the buyer's report don't harm the seller, even if the seller doesn't ever learn of them and moves to Kalamazoo. No additional liability for you. Actually, your scenario reduces the inspector liability.

In your scenario, missing a defect on a seller's inspection didn't cause the buyer to walk, the defect itself did. It was the second inspector finding the defect that caused the buyer to walk. Had you missed the defect for the buyer (instead of the seller), the deal couldn't have fallen apart over it because the buyer wouldn't have known about it. Missing a defect for the seller has no more liability than missing it for the buyer. It is often better (from a liability standpoint) to miss a defect for a seller than a buyer, because the buyer's inspector might catch it for you, and eliminate your damages.
[/quote]

You wanted to know how it would increase liability..

If it was just a buyers inspection and it was missed, then no one would know and life would go on.

The increase in liability would be the fact that the agents would both have vested interest in your neglect.

If the issue was found after closing the agents would not really care, they got their money.

It goes back to the fact that you missed it and your neglect caused the deal to fall thru. Your report was intrusted to document all issues, which it failed to do so.

The added liability would be the interest in both agents. They could have grounds to sue, and they very well could win. Simply because they would have written proof of your negligence..

Here is the definition::
A liability can mean something that is a hindrance or puts an individual or group at a disadvantage, or something that someone is responsible for, or something that increases the chance of something occurring (i.e. it is a cause).

How about not identifying a potentially dangerous situation. Even though we are suppose to or at least should identify them. An example of a dangerous situation might be something as simple as a toilet paper dispenser. That would be something not likely to be noticed but could be dangerous. There is a court case where i live for this and even though the toilet paper dispenser had been previously inspected someone did get hurt. Now they are saying that because it was previously inspected and the person inspecting it was now at fault.

How about not identifying a potentially dangerous situation. Even though we are suppose to or at least should identify them. An example of a dangerous situation might be something as simple as a toilet paper dispenser. That would be something not likely to be noticed but could be dangerous. There is a court case where i live for this and even though the toilet paper dispenser had been previously inspected someone did get hurt. Now they are saying that because it was previously inspected and the person inspecting it was now at fault.

I'm not joking click the link.
[/quote]

Which reenforces the fact that agents could sue for your lack of diagnosis....

[quote]
How about not identifying a potentially dangerous situation. Even though we are suppose to or at least should identify them. An example of a dangerous situation might be something as simple as a toilet paper dispenser. That would be something not likely to be noticed but could be dangerous. There is a court case where i live for this and even though the toilet paper dispenser had been previously inspected someone did get hurt. Now they are saying that because it was previously inspected and the person inspecting it was now at fault.
[/quote]
In your scenario, had you missed this defect "potentially dangerous situation" for the buyer, your liability would have been no less. Therefore, your liability hasn't increased because you missed it for the seller.